Arditti 2012

JOYCE A.
ARDITTI Virginia Tech
Child Trauma Within the Context of Parental

Incarceration: A Family Process Perspective
Informed by theory and the available empirical incarceration involves significant emotional,
research, 3 family processes are identified that social, and economic losses to the family, and
contribute to child trauma within the context of these effects are unique from the separation
a parent’s imprisonment: (a) preincarceration itself and the disadvantage that accompanies
factors, including the involvement of the offender incarceration (Arditti, Lambert-Shute, & Joest,
parent and children’s exposure to arrest; 2003; Braman, 2004; Murray, 2005; Murray &
(b) caregiving quality and stability; and (c) the Farrington, 2008). Children with an incarcer-
nature of children’s visitation experience during ated parent have a higher risk of school failure,
the offender parent’s confinement. Children poor self-esteem, internalizing problems, anti-
whose parents were involved contributors in social and delinquent behavior, and subsequent
their day-to-day lives prior to imprisonment, incarceration themselves (Huebner & Gustafson,
who have been subject to harsh and unstable 2007; Kinner, Alati, Najman, & Williams, 2007;
care and exposed to other traumagenic factors Murray & Farrington, 2008). Maternal incar-
associated with incarceration (e.g., violence, ceration is generally linked to even more pro-
maltreatment), and who have difficult visitation found child adjustment difficulties, including
experiences have the most intense and long- higher rates of intergenerational incarceration
lasting traumatic experiences. (Dallaire, 2007; Huebner & Gustafson, 2007;
Phillips, Burns, Wagner, Kramer, & Robbins,
2002), a particular concern given that women
Between 1991 and mid-2007, the number of are the fastest-growing prison population (Frost,
parents of minor children held in the nation’s Greene, & Pranis, 2006).
prisons increased by 79%. Fifty-two percent of The issue of child trauma is critical because
state inmates and 63% of federal inmates are of the relationship between trauma exposure
parents, with an estimated 1,706,600 minor chil- and later adjustment or pathology (Anda et al.,
dren, accounting for 2.3% of the U.S. population 2006; Felitti et al., 1998; Pynoos, 1993; Roth &
younger than age 18 (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Friedman, 1998). Indeed, trauma is of central
More ambitious estimates suggest that it is likely importance given a variety of child behavior and
that at least 10 million children have a parent health problems associated with traumatic stress
with current or past involvement in the criminal (Graham-Bermann & Seng, 2005), including
justice system (Reed & Reed, 1997). Parental children’s internalizing and externalizing behav-
ior (Valentino, Berkowitz, & Stover, 2010).
The incarceration of a parent (and any asso-
Department of Human Development, 311 Wallace Hall ciated criminal activity in the home) has been
(0416), Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 (arditti@ conceptualized as an adverse childhood expe-
vt.edu). rience (ACE), which is a traumatic experience
Key Words: at-risk children and families, attachment, care- that serves as a pathway for social, emotional,
giving, incarceration, parent-child relationships, PTSD. and cognitive neurodevelopmental impairments.
Journal of Family Theory & Review 4 (September 2012): 181–219 181
DOI:10.1111/j.1756-2589.2012.00128.x
182 Journal of Family Theory & Review
These impairments are believed to lead to the result of a traumatic experience. Child trauma
adoption of high-risk behaviors during adoles- is thus tied to specific diagnoses (e.g., acute
cence and adulthood, disease, disability, social stress disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder)
problems, and ultimately early mortality (Felitti that share a constellation of symptoms that may
et al., 1998). In general, ACEs tend to occur in include dissociative or numbing symptoms; per-
interrelated ‘‘clusters’’ and have a cumulative sistent reexperiencing and avoidance of certain
impact: As the number of ACEs increase, so does thoughts and emotions; and in general clini-
the impairment of multiple brain structures and cally significant distress and social, emotional,
functions (e.g., affective, somatic, memory, sub- and cognitive impairment (American Psychiatric
stance abuse and aggression-related domains; Association, 2000). Critics of the diagnostic for-
Anda et al., 2006). The ACE model applies to mulation of the DSM-IV note the limitations of
children in justice-involved families who not its definition of trauma in that it is derived from
only are affected by a parent’s incarceration survivors of a narrow set of circumstances (e.g.,
but also likely to experience maltreatment and rape, combat, disaster) and fails to capture the
exposure to violence within and outside the sequelae of trauma and its complexity over time
home and to grow up with substance or alcohol (Herman, 1992). A more expansive definition
abuse (Phillips, Burns, Wagner, & Barth, 2004; of child trauma, then, acknowledges not just
Phillips, Dettlaff, & Baldwin, 2010; Phillips, the threat that parental incarceration holds for
Erkanli, Keeler, Costello, & Angold, 2006; psychologically wounding a child but also the
Phillips & Zhao, 2010). complex and sometimes prolonged disruptions
In this manner, child trauma is both an out- to children’s relationships and beliefs about the
come and a mediator for additional child effects. world that stem from the imprisonment of a par-
For example, Wildeman (2010) cited trauma ent. To gain a comprehensive picture of child
resulting from paternal incarceration as a root trauma within the context of parental incarcer-
cause of children’s aggressive behavior. As with ation, I define it here to encompass children’s
all child trauma experiences, trauma pertain- experience or response as it pertains to either
ing to the imprisonment of a parent is complex events directly resulting from the parent’s incar-
and involves the management of intense physi- ceration (e.g., arrest and separation from the
ological and emotional reactions. Some experts parent) as well as children’s exposure to events
characterize many children’s experience in the deemed traumatic or potentially traumatic (e.g.,
context of parental incarceration as ‘‘enduring violence exposure, foster care) that correspond
trauma,’’ which comprises ongoing and repeated with family involvement in the criminal justice
stressors that serve to impede development system.
(Myers, Smarsh, Amlund-Hagan, & Kennon,
1999). The myriad forms of direct contact the
family may have with the police, courts, and A NOTE ON METHODOLOGY
prison system are fertile opportunities for the For the purpose of this review, I focused on
experience of child trauma (Comfort, 2008). empirically based peer-reviewed publications,
The purpose of this article is to consider books, and book chapters that draw directly from
the implications of family processes for child populations affected by parental incarceration
trauma within the context of parental incar- (e.g., parents, caregivers, children) and were
ceration. In defining child trauma, a common relevant to the family process mechanisms
starting point is the Diagnostic and Statistical delineated here or to the issue of child
Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. (DSM- trauma. These studies serve as the core
IV; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), of the review, and their design, findings,
which delineates two critical components of a and methodological strengths and weaknesses
traumatic event. First, a traumatic event is one in are summarized in the appendix. I utilized
which the individual witnesses or directly expe- both qualitative and quantitative research, as
riences an event that poses a significant threat each kind of research design contributed
of death, serious injury, or threat to the integrity to understanding family process and child
of self or others (American Psychiatric Associa- trauma within the context of incarceration.
tion, 2000). Second, the DSM-IV specifies that Most qualitative studies utilized here can be
children often express fear, helplessness, hor- characterized as purposeful in that the sampling
ror, and agitated or disorganized behavior as a strategy involved planning, focused objectives
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration 183
and the selection of information-rich cases for 1993). In general, the current lack of a
analysis (Patton, 2002). Purposeful studies yield processual understanding has been deemed a
in-depth understanding, particularly with respect serious gap in the research on incarceration
to processes (Edin, Nelson, & Paranal, 2004), and prisoner reentry (Dallaire, 2007; Uggen
although their generalizability is obviously & Wakefield, 2005; Visher & Travis, 2003),
limited. Most of the quantitative work included an inadequacy that is certainly applicable
here is more generalizable, with those studies to understanding children’s experience. A
that are population based having the greatest consideration of family process implies paying
external validity. However, population-based attention to the psychological and interpersonal
studies often are not specifically designed to experience of the incarcerated parent as well
answer questions about family process and as to that of family members who are left
parental incarceration. Critical variables of behind. Generally, ‘‘process’’ refers to ‘‘a
interest may be excluded, and measures may course of action, functions, operations, and
lack depth or application to issues pertaining methods of working’’ (Mancini & Roberto,
to parental imprisonment. Data limitations 2009, p. 573). A process-oriented approach
are particularly noticeable relative to female assumes that person–environment interactions
incarceration and recidivism (Bloom, Owen, occur in multiple ecological domains over
& Covington, 2003; Deschenes, Owen, & time and ‘‘reflects a concern with more than
Crow, 2006). Utilizing both purposeful and charting . . . risk factors. The assumption is that
population-based empirical work allowed for risk factors and . . . outcomes are interrelated
a more complete understanding of how parental due to the action of underlying mechanisms’’
incarceration might connect to child trauma. (Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2000, p. 52).
In addition to purposeful and population- Thus, child trauma may be an outcome of poor
based empirical work, I also utilized critical parenting and a contributor to parenting troubles
reviews (e.g., Murray, Farrington, Sekol, & (Kiser & Black, 2005).
Olsen, 2009; Parke & Clarke-Stewart, 2003; A process lens seeks to understand causal-
Poehlmann, Dallaire, Loper, & Shear, 2010) and ity by articulating how risk factors set in
government reports that examined literature or motion specific processes and mechanisms
summarized statistical data related to parental (Cummings et al., 2000). From a process per-
incarceration (e.g., reports originating from the spective, parental incarceration is a risk factor
Bureau of Justice; see Glaze & Maruschak, that can potentially set in motion profound
2008; Mumola, 2000). The coverage here is alterations in the relationships among children,
systematic in that it is characterized by the use their incarcerated parent, and their caregivers.
of empirical sources, a comprehensive search On the basis of existing theory and literature,
strategy, a critical appraisal of the literature, in this article I identify three family process
and an evidence map or quantitative summary mechanisms that influence the nature of child
(see the appendix) of exemplar studies (Cook, trauma within the context of parental incarcera-
Mulrow, & Haynes, 1997). tion: (a) preincarceration parental involvement,
(b) caregiving processes such as poor parenting
quality and instability, and (c) family visitation
FAMILY PROCESS AND CHILD TRAUMA with the offender parent during incarceration.
Despite its importance, little research directly This list is not exhaustive; it represents key
assesses child trauma within the context of family processes through which parental incar-
incarceration. Moreover, the extent to which ceration may contribute to child trauma.
family processes contribute to child trauma
within the context of parental incarceration
THEORETICAL SENSITIVITIES
remains unexplored. Here, ‘‘family process’’
is used in its broadest sense to acknowledge Much of our thinking regarding the potential link
the systemic interdependence among family between parental incarceration and child trauma
members; the importance of the family’s social is rooted in attachment theory. Attachment can
placement in shaping its members’ experience; be defined as a primary emotional bond between
and the psychopolitical reality of family systems, child and caregiver that serves as a basis for
in that different family members will have later relationships and development. In brief,
distinct experiences and agendas (Broderick, children’s healthy attachment relationships are
believed to serve as a foundation for self- effects of parental incarceration on children, the
organization and physiological self-regulation theory of ambiguous loss helps situate the fact
and to promote self-control and social skills that families impacted by incarceration are not
(Bowlby, 1982; Lieberman & Van Horn, 2008). dealing with an ordinary ‘‘clear-cut’’ loss—in
Such bonds can be considered a safe haven the sense that the loss is commonly defined and
for children, as they promote confidence and understood, and marked by visible bereavement
the ability to explore and make sense of rituals. Unlike other contexts of loss, such as
the world, as well as security in times of death or illness, loss of a family member because
distress (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, of incarceration seldom elicits sympathy and
1978). Adverse childhood experiences that support from others (Schoenbauer, 1986).
diminish or eliminate the availability of an Indeed, the uncertainty and pain that is a
attachment figure are critical because they hallmark of ambiguous loss is compounded by
may increase a child’s vulnerability to later hostile, disapproving, or indifferent social atti-
adversity. Attachment disruptions can increase tudes pertaining to the loss of a family member
the possibility that the child will meet with through imprisonment. Doka’s (1989) conceptu-
similar experiences throughout his or her life alization of disenfranchised grief is applicable to
on the basis of actions that spring forward families who are disrupted by incarceration. Dis-
from earlier attachment disruptions (Bowlby, enfranchised grief is defined as occurring when
1982). Parental incarceration may be associated persons experience a loss that is not or cannot
with disruptions in attachment bonds because be openly acknowledged, publicly mourned, or
of the physical separation stemming from the socially supported. Disenfranchisement is char-
parent’s confinement as well as discontinuities in acteristic of losses that are not openly recognized
children’s care—particularly if the incarcerated and not defined as socially significant. This may
parent was a primary caregiver prior to include highly charged losses, which do not fit
his or her imprisonment (Poehlmann, 2005b; socially approved categories of loss but rather
for a review, see also Poehlmann, 2010). generate feelings of shame, embarrassment, and
Attachment theory posits that real-life events contribute to secret keeping (Werner-Lin &
that disrupt attachment bonds or present a Moro, 2004). Incarceration is one of those cir-
risk of interruption result in acute anxiety for cumstances in which the reality of the loss itself
children and mourning following the loss of is not socially validated, and in which family
the attachment figure (Bowlby, 1982). From an members may collude to maintain secrets about
attachment perspective, parental incarceration the loss (e.g., lying to children regarding their
can be defined as traumatizing and aligns with parents’ whereabouts). The inability to grieve
Lindemann’s (1944) classic and broadly used publicly means the parent is likely mourned in
definition of psychological trauma: the sudden, isolation, thus denying family members critical
uncontrollable disruption of affiliative bonds support from other family members or commu-
(van der Kolk, 1987). nity (Werner-Lin & Moro, 2004).
Social-psychological theories of loss and
trauma contextualize attachment bonds by
emphasizing that our greatest losses, such as PARENTAL INCARCERATION AND CHILDREN’S
the loss of a parent or spouse, become social TRAUMATIC SEPARATION
losses—of interaction, companionship, love, and Theory pertaining to the implications of
the ‘‘human touch’’ (Harvey, 2002, p. 4). The attachment disruption, ambiguous loss, and
loss of a parent to incarceration can be thought of disenfranchised groups sensitizes us to the
as an ambiguous loss, defined as an unclear loss potential of parental incarceration to be a
whereby a loved one is missing either physically traumatizing experience for children. Travis
or psychologically (Boss, 2004). Boss (2004) and Waul (2003) used general principles in
notes that ambiguous loss lacks resolution: the literature on child development and trauma
‘‘Typically [it is] a long-term situation that to hypothesize how children experience the
traumatizes and immobilizes, not a single event’’ incarceration of a parent. In doing so, they draw
(p. 24). Such a definition is consistent with two conclusions: (a) Children always experience
developmental theorists’ argument concerning the loss of a parent as a traumatic event, and
the unfolding of parental incarceration impacts (b) children have greater difficulty coping in
over time. Clearly, when thinking about the situations characterized by uncertainty. Travis
and Waul provided an important foundation in problems for children but absence in conjunc-
thinking about child trauma and child outcomes, tion with imprisonment. Fritsch and Burkhead’s
although they note that ‘‘no research studies have (1981) study suggests that the loss of a parent
parsed out the effects of loss of a parent due to per se does not always result in pathology and
incarceration from other stressful and traumatic that other processes (e.g., social stigma) bear on
circumstances that also generally characterize how children may react and ultimately adjust to
the lives of these children’’ (p. 17). Indeed, there their parent’s incarceration.
is a paucity of research available using designs Although a definitive answer to the cause of
and analytic techniques that would permit a child trauma within the context of incarcera-
certain answer to whether child trauma is a tion may not be forthcoming from the empirical
result of the loss due to parental incarceration or literature, research utilizing purposeful samples
of other circumstances associated with the loss. of justice-involved families provides prelimi-
Murray et al. (2009) conducted a meta-analysis nary confirmation that the loss of a parent due
of 16 empirically rigorous studies investigating to incarceration is in fact traumatic and can
the effects of parental imprisonment during be characterized as ambiguous and uncertain.
childhood. Studies represented included children For example, Kampfner’s (1995) comparative
of the incarcerated as well as imprisoned parents. study of 36 children of incarcerated mothers
Although child trauma was not specifically found that one third of the children in the study
examined, parental imprisonment was connected displayed symptoms of posttraumatic stress dis-
to poor mental health in children and a order (PTSD), symptoms of which included
trend toward antisocial behavioral outcomes for difficulty sleeping or concentrating; depression;
children after parental imprisonment, even when emotional expressions of fear, anger, and guilt;
controlling for covariates. Similar conclusions and flashbacks and nightmares. Compared with
were yielded by a study of 3,540 children (in a control group of 36 children with a similar
2,348 different families in 1997; Johnson, 2009). high-risk background whose mothers remained
A priori measures of cumulative disadvantage at home, children with incarcerated mothers
(e.g., socioeconomic status, education), as well demonstrated sustained and vivid recalls of trau-
as fathers’ history of criminality and deviant matic events even after 2 to 3 years of separation.
behavior, were included in the study; yet Kampfner also reported a striking difference
even controlling for these factors, parental between the two groups of children: ‘‘Many
incarceration still predicted child behavior and children of incarcerated mothers reported having
school problems, thus giving credence to the no emotional supports; they could not identify
argument that a parent’s incarceration has a people . . . with whom they could talk about their
direct impact on children. mothers. This [lack of support] was not true of
Intriguing information about the source of children in the control group’’ (p. 94).
child effects among families that experience Empirical support of the link between parental
parental incarceration comes from the reports incarceration and trauma was revealed in a recent
of 73 randomly selected inmates of a federal mixed-methods study by Bocknek, Sanderson,
minimum-security prison (Fritsch & Burkhead, and Britner (2009). The 35 school-age children
1981). Incarcerated mothers and fathers were participating in their study demonstrated a high
asked to describe the acting out (i.e., exter- prevalence of posttraumatic stress, high rates
nalizing) and acting in (i.e., internalizing or of both internalizing and externalizing behav-
inner directed behaviors causing emotional dis- iors, and school difficulties. The demographic
tress) behaviors of their children. Statistically profile of the children in their sample who had
significant associations between parental incar- experienced a parent’s incarceration paralleled
ceration and child adjustment were revealed. national data (i.e., they were mostly children of
However, these relationships held only provided color with a father in prison, living with their
that children were aware of their parent’s incar- biological mother), which adds further credi-
ceration. When children believed their parent bility to their results. Approximately 77% of
to be away for some other socially acceptable the children interviewed had clinical posttrau-
reason (e.g., being at school, working, in the matic symptom scores (via the Child Report of
hospital), these significant relationships disap- Posttraumatic Symptoms), and scores were cor-
peared. The authors concluded that it is not the related with youths’ self-report of withdrawal
parental absence per se that results in behavior (i.e., their measure of internalizing behavior)
and delinquency (i.e., their measure of exter- and confusion, loneliness, anger, fear, depres-
nalizing behavior). The findings from this small sion, crying, developmental regressions, and
data set were enriched via in-depth qualitative sleep problems. Ultimately, Poehlmann (2005c)
interviews. The authors’ descriptions poignantly concluded that two thirds of the children held
illustrate the nuances of child trauma and how attachment representations that were character-
it might link with various outcomes in their ized by intense ambivalence, disorganization,
lives: ‘‘Jeremy, age 10, reported that he had violence, and detachment. More secure repre-
not attended school in over a year. He stated sentations were linked with children being older
that this was because he was afraid of the secu- and not reacting to the separation with anger.
rity guard. His mother added that she doesn’t Poehlmann’s (2005c) work gives indirect sup-
make him go anymore and that he will have to port to the idea that separations from mothers are
repeat the third grade’’ (Bocknek et al., 2009, traumatic (i.e., characterized by intense emotion
p. 328). Another child, Eduardo, age 12, also and behavioral changes) and that older children
had to repeat a grade. He exhibited symptoms of may have an advantage in terms of maintaining
posttraumatic stress and spent his time at school more positive attachments with their mothers.
alone and in the back of the classroom. His Evidence of children’s experience of trau-
social worker reported that when Eduardo was matic separation has been directly observed in
‘‘frustrated or upset, he becomes unresponsive the context of visitation and in caregiver reports
and covers his head with his hands’’ (Bock- (Arditti, 2003; Arditti, Lambert-Shute et al.,
nek et al., 2009, p. 328). Bocknek et al. (2009) 2003). Arditti’s (2003) jail study used another
documented through their interviews the painful purposeful sample, with family demographics
feelings children have as a result of their par- consistent with nationally representative sam-
ents’ incarceration and their efforts to avoid the ples of those affected by parental incarceration.
intensity of those feelings. During the interview More specifically, participants were dispropor-
one child who had a good relationship with tionately poor and African American, and the
his nonincarcerated mother became so upset majority of children and visitors were at the jail
when discussing his father that he put his head to visit fathers. Interview notes (written by clini-
inside his shirt. Other markers of trauma (see cally trained staff) documented several instances
Pynoos, 1993) and ambiguous loss as a result of children having difficulties as a result of trau-
of parent imprisonment were apparent in the matic separation due to parental incarceration.
qualitative interviews, such as ineffective cop- For example, one mother described her daugh-
ing, ‘‘recurring nightmares in which children ter’s behavior regression (i.e., encopresis, or
witnessed their incarcerated parent’s death, or in defecating in her pants), which she attributed to
which they themselves were murdered’’ (Bock- the trauma of parental incarceration: ‘‘She [the
nek et al., 2009, p. 329), hypervigilance, guilt mother] described many of the difficulties that
and a sense of responsibility, and fear of police the child was having, particularly that she was
officers. The authors discussed children’s cop- defecating in her pants, although she had been
ing—much of it they characterized as avoidant potty trained for well over a year. Since her
and consistent with self-protective mechanisms father’s incarceration she wants to use diapers’’
that children use to distance themselves from (Arditti, 2003, p. 128).
trauma and traumatic reminders, as well as to In summary, the available empirical research
control physical arousal and anxiety. gives credence to the argument that parental
Clues regarding children’s experience of trau- incarceration is an adverse childhood experience
matic separation are revealed in Poehlmann’s with social, emotional, and behavioral markers
(2005c) analysis of the impact of maternal incar- indicative of child trauma. Studies highlight-
ceration on young children’s attachment repre- ing attachment disruption, social stigma, and
sentations. All children in this study had incar- ambiguous loss suggest that contexts of criminal
cerated mothers who were primary caregivers, justice involvement augment the possibility of
which suggests they were important attachment child trauma stemming from parental separation.
figures. Indirect evidence of traumatic separation
was documented, with the majority of children’s
FAMILY PROCESSES LINKED TO CHILD TRAUMA
mothers and caregivers reporting the presence
of strong emotions and behavioral reactions In conjunction with any direct impact that
after the separation, including sadness, worry separation from a parent may have as a
result of incarceration, several family processes exist documenting the prevalence of children
are salient in the literature that help explain who witness their parent’s arrest, the avail-
the underlying connection between a parent’s able information suggests that this occurrence
imprisonment and child trauma. Figure 1 sum- is not unusual. Estimates vary from 20% of
marizes salient family influences that link to children (Covington, 1995; Johnston, 1991) to
child trauma in the context of parental incarcer- rates approaching 84% (Kampfner, 1995). A
ation. These processes connect with attachment recent inquiry among parents in New Mexico
dynamics, children’s experience of loss, and state prison revealed that 32% of mothers and
the broader context of cumulative disadvantage 26% of fathers reported that their children had
that characterizes so many families affected by witnessed their arrest (Nolan, 2003). Phillips
incarceration. and Zhao (2010) estimated that nationally, of
the 1 million children age 8 and older who are
the subject of maltreatment reports, more than
Preincarceration Factors
33% of them witness the arrest of someone with
The literature suggests two critical mechanisms whom they live.
of effect preincarceration with respect to Despite the lack of precise and systematic data
the extent to which parental incarceration collection documenting the numbers of children
contributes to child trauma: children’s exposure who do in fact witness parental arrest, existing
to parental arrest and the nature of their information suggests that parental incarceration
involvement with the offender parent prior correlates with substantial numbers of children
to incarceration. With respect to each of also witnessing their parent’s arrest. Further,
these factors, the data provide an incomplete children may have multiple experiences of
picture, yet the information that is available is witnessing arrest within their families, thus
compelling. compounding the potential for intense child
trauma. For example, elevated PTSD symptoms
Parental arrest. Children affected by incarcer- were most prevalent among children who
ation may also witness their parents’ arrest. The witnessed a family member’s arrest and who
experience is viewed as enhancing the likelihood had a recently arrested parent (Phillips & Zhao,
of PTSD and symptom intensity (Kampfner, 2010). Witnessing parental arrest is highly
1995; Phillips, Erkanli, et al., 2006; Phillips & context specific and may involve witnessing
Zhao, 2010), as well as maladjustment (Dal- a parent engage in criminal activity. The arrest
laire & Wilson, 2010) and problem behaviors scene may involve violence, verbal altercations
such as substance abuse and later arrest (in boys with police, and the use of weapons (Dallaire
only; Kinner, Alati, Najman, & Williams, 2007; & Wilson, 2010). Witnessing parental arrest
Widom & White, 1997). Although little data may not only traumatize and disorient children
but also can evolve into a hatred or fear of
the police and authority figures (Bernstein,
FIGURE 1. CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF FAMILY PROCESSES
2005; Kampfner, 1995). Given these kinds of
LINKED TO CHILD TRAUMA WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF
PARENTAL INCARCERATION.
scenarios and the limited empirical evidence, it
seems that parental unavailability due to arrest,
and ultimately incarceration, presents specific
difficulties for children.
Children’s Prior Involvement With the Offender

Parent
Child outcomes as a result of parental incar-
ceration depend in part on the extent to which
the offending parent contributed to family well-
being and was a part of the family system prior to
incarceration (Hagan & Dinovitzer, 1999). As a
result of the scarcity of research directly bearing
on the issue of the preincarceration parent-
child involvement and child trauma, this review
also considers research dealing with children’s incarceration significantly increased young chil-
exposure to the offender parent preincarceration dren’s externalizing and attention problems.
as well as child outcomes related to child trauma. Although these effects were stronger when
A parent’s physical presence in the household fathers resided with their children prior to incar-
prior to incarceration has been used as one basic ceration, they were still significant even for chil-
indicator of parental involvement in the liter- dren with nonresident fathers (Geller, Cooper,
ature. The Survey of Inmates (Mumola, 2000) Garfinkel, & Mincy, 2010). Implications of the
provided two basic measures of parents’ physi- parent-child relationship preincarceration can
cal presence prior to incarceration. First, it seems also be inferred from Johnson’s (2009) nation-
that less than 50% of parent-prisoners lived with ally representative study of 3,540 incarcerated
their minor children 1 month prior to arrest, with fathers and their children. Findings revealed that
more mothers (about 59%) than fathers (about paternal incarceration was not associated with
44%) living with their children before arrest. child behavior problems if confinement occurred
The number of parents living with their children prior to the birth of the child, thus providing
increased when measured later at the time of support for a connection between offender resi-
admission to prison, with about 64% of mothers dence with children and negative psychological
and 44% of fathers living with their children at consequences to children in the event of incar-
the time of incarceration. Therefore, it appears ceration. However, it is unknown whether the
that a good many parents were physically present negative child effects of paternal incarceration
in their child’s household at some point prior to revealed in the analysis would hold true for chil-
their confinement (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). dren whose parent was incarcerated during their
Other studies directly assessing children sug- childhood but did not live with them.
gest lower levels of parental residence prior to Beyond the fact of physical residence, the
incarceration. Johnston’s (1992, 1993; Johnston full nature of parents’ presence in the family
& Carlin, 1996) Children of Criminal Offend- prior to their arrest and incarceration is unclear.
ers Study looked at life experiences of chil- National data on federal and state prisoners
dren of criminal offenders. Using standardized suggests that most incarcerated fathers were
measures of psychological and developmental less likely than incarcerated mothers to be
assessment, the researchers examined the lives responsible for the day-to-day care of their
of 628 children who were affected by incarcer- children and relied heavily on someone else,
ation. Although 90% had experienced parental typically the mother of their child(ren), to
incarceration, fewer than 12% had lived con- provide child care (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008).
tinuously with any parent or primary caregiver In contrast, other studies based on smaller
from birth. In a follow-up investigation of 190 samples suggest that some incarcerated fathers
randomly selected public school children, most do spend considerable time with their children
of whom had an arrested or incarcerated par- before incarceration (Day, Acock, Arditti, &
ent, the majority of the children were not living Bahr, 2001; Lattimore, Steffey, Visher, 2009).
with the offender parent at the time of the study In contrast to negative impacts of parental
(Johnston, 2001). Forty percent of children of incarceration, positive family outcomes are
male offenders had never lived with their fathers possible to the extent that incarceration removed
(compared to 9% of other children without a parents from the picture who engaged in
history of parental incarceration), and 20% of problematic behaviors that were detrimental
children of female offenders never lived with and extremely harmful to their family (Jaffee,
mother (compared to 1% of other children). On Moffitt, Caspi, & Taylor, 2003; Sano, 2005).
the basis of these facts, Johnston (2006) pre- For example, the removal of an abusive,
sented a counterview to the widespread belief neglectful, or violent parent via imprisonment
that parental incarceration profoundly affects may provide immediate relief to victimized
children. She concludes that given nonresidence family members (Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008) and
and residential instability, parental incarcera- decrease child aggression in boys (Wildeman,
tion has ‘‘little or no direct influence on child 2010). Similarly, Jaffee et al. (2003) found that
outcomes’’ (Johnston, 2006, p. 706). children living with fathers who engaged in
Yet such a conclusion may not be fully war- high levels of antisocial behavior were far more
ranted. A recent analysis of 3,000 low-income likely to develop clinically significant behavior
urban families found evidence that paternal problems than their peers whose fathers also
were antisocial but did not reside with their of the parent and the child’s well-being. The
children. incarceration of children’s drug-addicted moth-
Beyond residential information, little is ers had little effect on children’s well-being
known about the relationships children have because children were already receiving stable,
with their incarcerated parent prior to their nonmaternal care prior to their mothers’ arrest
imprisonment. About half of parents in state and imprisonment. One may also infer from this
prison report providing the primary financial study that children in these scenarios (i.e., non-
support for their minor children, with more resident mother and receiving stable care) were
than 75% of those reporting employment and not subject to the same level of traumatic sepa-
salary or wages in the month prior to their ration that children residing with their mothers
arrest (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Fathers and losing them to incarceration would be.
also were a source of child support for some On the basis of this evidence and the findings
families prior to their incarceration (Arditti, pertaining to maternal incarceration, as well as
Lambert-Shute et al., 2003). In this manner, drawing from other literature on the question
parents, particularly fathers, contributed to their of the impact of separation of children from a
children’s well-being prior to their incarceration. parent (e.g., Emery, 1994), one can infer that, to
It can then be inferred that the loss of parental the extent that incarceration leads to a separation
financial support as a result of incarceration from an important attachment figure in a child’s
undermines child well-being by increasing the life, regardless of parent gender or residence,
economic and socioemotional vulnerability of then incarceration is associated with traumatic
the families in which children live (Hagan & separation or its behavioral manifestations.
Dinovitzer, 1999; McLoyd, 1990; Murray &
Farrington, 2006; Wildeman, 2010).
The literature on incarcerated mothers pro- Caregiving Quality and Stability
vides important clues that preincarceration Although there are some instances when incar-
parenting involvement is an important factor ceration might improve children’s caregiving
that influences the strength of the relation- scenarios (e.g., removing an abusive or neglect-
ship between parental incarceration and negative ful parent from the home) and protect them
child effects. Maternal incarceration is generally from exposure to harmful behaviors such as
linked to even more profound child adjustment parental drug abuse (see Hanlon, O’Grady,
difficulties and intergenerational incarceration Bennett-Sears, & Callaman, 2005), the body
(Huebner & Gustafson, 2007; Phillips, Burns, of evidence suggests that parental incarcera-
Wagner, & Barth, 2004; Phillips, Burns, Wag- tion poses specific risks in terms of the nature
ner, Kramer et al., 2002; for exceptions, see of the care that children ‘‘left behind’’ will
Cho, 2009a, 2009b; Geller, Garfinkel, Cooper, receive. Overall, the empirical literature points
& Mincy, 2008). The more intense consequences to a lack of quality parenting and stability on
that are typically a result of maternal incarcer- the part of caregivers responsible for children
ation likely stem in part from mothers’ role with incarcerated parents (Mackintosh, Myers,
as primary caregivers prior to their incarcera- & Kennon, 2006; Phillips, Erkanli et al., 2006;
tion and their day-to-day involvement with their Poehlmann, 2005c). The lack of quality, sta-
children. It is also duly noted that children of ble parenting can be considered an important
mothers who are incarcerated are at greater risk contributor to child trauma (Gewirtz, Forgatch,
of having both parents incarcerated, thus com- & Wieling, 2008; Valentino et al., 2010). If
pounding risk to the child or children (Geller major disruptions occur in caregiving arrange-
et al., 2008; Johnston, 2006). ments, attachment relationships must be revised,
Research is fairly clear that children with and children may experience insecurity and
incarcerated mothers who were their primary subsequent emotional and cognitive problems
caregivers seem to suffer more intense nega- (Poehlmann, 2003). Instability between care-
tive effects than children who were not living giver and child can equate to multiple disruptions
with their mothers prior to the incarceration over time.
(Hairston, 1991; Hanlon, Blatchley et al., 2005). The caregiver-child relationship is influenced
The Hanlon, Blatchley et al. (2005) study pro- on many levels by a parent’s incarceration,
vides the most powerful support of the relation- and it is not always in an expected manner.
ship between the preincarceration involvement For example, a reinspection of the jail data
(Arditti, Lambert-Shute et al., 2003) suggests 2006). In the case of paternal incarceration, fre-
that about half of the 56 caregivers (the majority quent changes in the nonincarcerated parent’s
of whom were their children’s mothers) visiting (usually the mother’s) romantic relationships
their jailed family member reported that their are all too often a feature of justice-involved
relationship with their children had been affected families (Edin et al., 2004). These frequent rela-
by the incarceration—particularly with regard tionship changes in turn connect with maternal
to the amount of time they spent with their distress and negative parenting practices, such
children. It was expected that caregivers would as harsh discipline and withdrawal (Arditti, Bur-
spend less time with children, with the reasoning ton, & Neeves-Botelho, 2010; Beck, Cooper,
that, because of role strain and the loss of McLanahan, & Brooks-Gunn, 2009; Braman,
income, caregivers would be outside the home 2004), which link to deleterious child outcomes
working more. However, 28% of caregivers (Osborne & McClanahan, 2007). In fact, recent
reported more time spent with children since the evidence has specifically linked hostile and coer-
incarceration, and only 11% reported less time cive parenting to children’s PTSD symptoms,
spent with children since the incarceration. The thus highlighting the potentially salient role
fact that parental incarceration was associated of parenting behaviors in explaining children’s
with caregivers’ loss of employment and perhaps trauma symptoms (Valentino et al., 2010).
their child care helps explain why they may In addition to any family instability triggered
spend more time with their children. What are the by a parent’s incarceration, caregivers responsi-
implications of a caregiver spending more time ble for the inmate’s children are often unprepared
with their children, particularly in the context physically, emotionally, and financially to care
of unemployment? This is a question that is for the children—particularly over extended
not easily answered, for it obviously depends periods (Hanlon, Carswell, & Rose, 2007;
on the quality of parenting the children receive Hungerford, 1996; Mackintosh et al., 2006).
from their caregiver. If care is good, then more Given the demographics of the penal population
time might be good given sufficient resources; (disproportionately younger men of color), a
if care is inadequate, particularly in conjunction disproportionate number of caregivers responsi-
with economic shortfalls, then more time with ble for the offender’s children are resource-poor
children can put the children at risk for poor African American women (Christian & Thomas,
adjustment and health outcomes. 2009; Comfort, 2008; Hanlon, Carswell et al.,
The preceding example from the jail study 2007). Consequences of women’s caregiving
(regarding caregiver time spent with children) and their connections to the offender include
highlights the complexity of determining how further marginalization; role strain due to car-
children may respond to a parent’s incarcera- ing for the prisoner and any shared children;
tion. Children’s response to incarceration largely declining health; and economic decline resulting
involves the extent to which parents’ impris- from an array of sources, including shoul-
onment is associated with risks to caregiver’s dering incarceration-related expenses (Arditti,
mental health and risk experiences in chil- Lambert-Shute et al., 2003; Braman, 2004).
dren’s interactions with caregivers (Dallaire & Grandmothers in particular are heavily relied
Aaron, 2010). Children who have a history of on to care for children affected by incarceration,
parental, and in particular maternal, incarcer- especially as a result of maternal incarceration
ation are more likely to experience caregiver (see, e.g., Hanlon, Carswell et al., 2007). This
risks, such as caregiver mental health problems, is noteworthy because women are the fastest-
high levels of caregiver stress, substance abuse growing prison population. Additionally, aging
(Mackintosh et al., 2006; Phillips, Burns, Wag- parents of the incarcerated are also relied on
ner, & Barth, 2004; Phillips, Erkanli et al., 2006), to provide support for the reentering offender
caregiver health problems (Arditti, Lambert- parent (upon release from confinement). Surro-
Shute et al., 2003), harsh punitive discipline and gate caregiving on the part of grandparents can
less parental supervision (Phillips, Erkanli et al., be problematic for child and grandparent, given
2006), and family victimization (Aaron & Dal- that many elders are poor and infirm (Hanlon,
laire, 2010; Phillips, Burns, Wagner, & Barth, Carswell et al., 2007) and that family markers
2004; Phillips, Erkanli et al., 2006). Further, of risk are overrepresented in households with
children’s care during a parent’s incarceration grandparent caregivers (see Poehlmann, 2003).
can often be characterized as unstable (Johnston, For example, the National Council on Crime and
Delinquency study of 66 caregivers of children It is unknown how stigma specifically

whose mothers were incarcerated found most connects with the issue of child trauma.
were maternal grandmothers over age 50 with Finkelhor and Browne’s (1985) traumagenic
low income and on public assistance (Bloom model of sexual abuse may be particularly
& Steinhart, 1993). Grandmothers in this study applicable to children with incarcerated parents.
were responsible for an average of 2.3 children The model conceptualizes trauma as a process
age 8.5 years of age. Grandparents raising grand- (rather than a discrete event, as is often the
children face multiple challenges and may be case with a PTSD diagnosis) that alters a child’s
unprepared or unable to deal with the demands of cognitive and emotional orientation and distorts
childrearing. For example, grandparents respon- perceptions about self and the world. The trauma
sible for children who have an incarcerated process from this perspective is influenced
parent are also commonly caring for other family by several key factors—with stigmatization
members staying at the same residence (Dressel delineated as a critical dynamic augmenting
& Barnhill, 1990). Grandparents who are care- trauma.
giving as a result of incarceration identify an
array of problems associated with the children Justice-involved families and child welfare.
in their care, including school and learning diffi- Perhaps one of the most profound implications
culties, behavior problems, and health or mental of parental incarceration for child trauma
health difficulties (Bloom & Steinhart, 1993; concerns the overlap of familial criminal justice
Harm & Thompson, 1995). Those grandparents involvement, child welfare involvement, foster
raising children as a result of parental incarcer- care, and child maltreatment. Approximately
ation may also be reluctant to seek formal help 11% of incarcerated mothers and 2% of
from agencies and social welfare organizations incarcerated fathers have children in foster
(Dressel & Barnhill, 1994). care (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Further,
Caregivers’ reluctance to seek help for one in eight children who were subjects of a
themselves or for the children under their care Child Welfare Services (CWS) maltreatment
may be due in part to the social stigma that report had a parent who was recently arrested
surrounds a parent’s incarceration. In general, (Phillips, Burns, Wagner, & Barth, 2004).
stigma may be viewed as a force compromising However, the connection among a parent’s
parenting and child adjustment (Lowenstein, arrest and incarceration, child welfare service
1986; Phillips & Gates, 2010). Caregivers may involvement of his or her children, and child
face stigma and isolation from others who may trauma is not straightforward and may involve
question their involvement with the incarcerated indirect or secondary repercussions surrounding
parent, blame them for the incarcerated parent’s the parents’ criminal justice involvement. For
criminality, or somehow make assumptions example, many cumulative disadvantage factors
about their values based on the incarcerated associated with arrest and parental incarceration
parent’s actions (Nesmith, Ruhland, & Krueger, (e.g., substance abuse, mental illness, family
2006). Seeing their children (or the children violence) are also risk factors for child
under their care) experience stigma and blame maltreatment (Phillips, Dettlaff, et al., 2010)
is particularly difficult for caregivers (Phillips and subsequent trauma. Child maltreatment,
& Gates, 2010). Recent empirical evidence particularly sexual abuse, is a well-documented
of stigma in children’s school environments source of child trauma (Briere, 1992; Roth &
confirms caregiver perceptions of children’s Friedman, 1998). Recent data from the National
stigmatization. Teachers with awareness that a Survey of Children and Adolescent Well-Being
student’s parent is incarcerated are likely to suggest that children in the child welfare system
characterize those children as having chaotic who witnessed their parents’ arrest are distinct
home environments and behavior problems at from other children in the system in very
school (Dallaire, Ciccone, & Wilson, 2010). important ways. These children are more likely
Even very young children have demonstrated to also witness and be victim to violence within
an awareness of societal attitudes toward the family, more likely to witness nonviolent
stigmatized groups. They may in turn internalize crimes, and more likely to live in families
negative beliefs, thus leading to low self-esteem that struggle to meet their basic needs than
and emotional and behavioral problems (Phillips are children in the system who do not witness
& Gates, 2010). parental arrest (Phillips & Zhao, 2010). These
co-occurring conditions, along with the unique who come to the attention of CWS, chil-
and significant contribution of parental arrest dren whose parents were recently arrested are
to elevated trauma symptomatology (Phillips & younger, disproportionately African American,
Zhao, 2010), highlight the vulnerability children and significantly more likely to be in out-of-
in justice-involved families with respect to child home care (Phillips, Burns, Wagner, & Barth,
trauma. 2004).
Unfortunately, there is little documentation Children’s involvement in the child welfare
on the extent and implications of the overlap, system carries implications with respect to child
because child welfare agencies do not routinely trauma, in terms of the reasons that sent them
track information about parents’ criminal jus- into foster care as well as the fact that it
tice involvement, and criminal justice entities exposes them to new stressors. For example,
do not track information about offender parents’ children in foster care experience a great deal
children (Phillips, Dettlaff et al., 2010). Despite of residential mobility and school disruption
the tremendous effect a parent’s criminal justice (Pecora et al., 2005), as well as higher rates
involvement has on his or her children, there of emotional difficulties than other children
is no requirement that systems serving children who are disadvantaged (Stein et al., 2001). The
take note of parental incarceration (Bernstein, prevalence of PTSD among foster-care alumni
2005). Systematic review of case records of 452 (25.2%), defined as those who had previously
urban children in Texas suggests four pathways been in foster care, was significantly higher than
in which the criminal justice system involvement the general U.S. population (4.0%) and U.S. war
of children’s family members intersects with the veterans (Vietnam, 15%; Afghanistan, 6%; and
child welfare system. First, parental arrest and Iraq, 12–13%; Pecora et al., 2005) and is likely
CWS involvement may coincide, with maltreat- a result of many factors, such as childhood
ment coming to the attention of the authorities maltreatment and or traumatic separation from
as a result of parental arrest for some other a parent. Additionally, the majority of children
matter (more likely) or parental arrest occur- in foster care witness multiple forms of violence
ring as a result of a CWS investigation (less within the family and the community, and
likely). Second, it appears that parents’ criminal this exposure to violence may continue for
histories played into CWS workers decisions to many despite their out-of-home placement (Stein
remove children from the home—often parental et al., 2001). Violence exposure explains a
arrest and incarceration histories were viewed as substantial amount of variance in total trauma
threatening a child’s safety. Third, in about one symptoms (Singer, Anglin, Song, & Lunghofer,
in four cases of maltreatment requiring removal 1995), and even exposure to mild violence
from the home, relatives who were examined can be linked to traumatic stress (Stein et al.,
as placement possibilities had criminal histories. 2001).
These relatives were often denied custody in In summary, children of incarcerated parents
most instances, thus resulting in the child’s entry are at great risk for child trauma given their risk
into foster care. Finally, often CWS became of maltreatment, as well as violence exposure
involved with children while their mothers or at home or in their communities. Unfortunately,
fathers were in jail or prison. These were children these risks continue with placement in foster
who were born to incarcerated mothers, chil- care. Violence exposure may be particularly
dren whose living arrangements during parental problematic for children with an incarcerated
incarceration were deemed unsafe, or children mother, as those children may witness domes-
whose relative caregivers were no longer will- tic violence involving their mothers (Dehart &
ing or able to provide care. The Phillips, Dettlaff Altshuler, 2009), as well as any violence expo-
et al. (2010) study is important because it sug- sure or difficulties they encounter if in foster
gests that, with the expansion of the criminal care (Greene, Haney, & Hurtado, 2000). Such
justice system in recent years, there is a greater experiences make children vulnerable to trauma
possibility that arresting and incarcerating par- associated with either their own victimization
ents can precipitate children’s involvement with or the witnessing of another’s victimization
CWS and enhance the likelihood of foster- (Dehart & Altshuler, 2009; McKay, Lynn, &
care placement. A related study confirms this Bannon, 2005; Stein et al., 2001). Apart from
contention; on the basis of nationally repre- foster care, caregivers of children with a parent
sentative data, compared with other children in prison may be overwhelmed and stressed as a
result of the strains and risk markers associated of parents (70% state and 84% federal) had mail
with single parenting or grandparent fosterage— contact with their children at some point, more
difficulties that can be compounded by the than half had spoken by telephone with their
stigma of parental incarceration. children (53% state and 85% federal), and 42%
of state prisoner parents and 55% of federal pris-
oner parents reported having an in-person visit.
The Paradox of Family Visitation Mothers (62%) and fathers (49%) who had lived
A developmental paradox implies social ecolo- with their children were more likely to report
gies that have seemingly contradictory qualities some type of weekly contact with their chil-
or developmental outcomes that run counter dren. An analysis of data drawn from Chicago
to theoretical expectations (Bronfenbrenner, offenders revealed similar trends in contact and
1979). Visitation can be considered a paradox visitation (La Vigne, Visher, & Castro, 2005).
with respect to child trauma for two primary rea- The vast majority of prisoners reported having
sons. First, despite the delineation of visitation at least some telephone or mail contact with
as a key moderator facilitating child adjustment family members, intimate partners, and children
(Parke & Clarke-Stewart, 2003), there is also the (92%, 81%, and 53%, respectively). However,
potential that visitation serves as a context for the likelihood of having any in-person contact
proximal traumatic reminders (Pynoos, 1993). was much lower than the national data sug-
Visitation may arouse deeply painful emotions gested. Only about 13% of prisoners reported
among family members, particularly children, in-person visits with children or family, and 29%
which involve reliving traumatic separation from reported visits from intimate partners. About two
the parent. Second, visitation may benefit some thirds of participants reported that they had dif-
family members more than others. For example, ficulties staying in touch with family primarily
family visitation may facilitate social reintegra- because the prison was too far away or that tele-
tion for the offender parent; however, it also phone calls were too expensive. Indeed, 62%
more firmly entrenches the family in the insti- of parents in state prison and 84% of federal
tutional life of the inmate. Frequent contact prisoners were housed more than 100 miles
extends the reach and intensity of the influence from their place of residence at arrest (Mumola,
of the prison apparatus on the family; Comfort 2000).
(2008) referred to this process as secondary pris- Many parents in an array of institutional
onization. Visitation may be particularly difficult settings report having contact with their children
for children depending on their developmental and families via mail and phone a more frequent
status and coping resources. Because there is lit- and perhaps easier means of communication.
tle in the way of direct assessment of the effects In-person visitation is the most proximal form
of visitation on child trauma, benefits and dif- of contact, which suggests that it will have
ficulties of family visitation within prison and the most impact on parents, children, and
jails will be broadly considered in terms of child caregivers (Arditti, 2003, 2005). Visits are ‘‘up
effects. close and personal’’ and the focal point of
contact for offenders, family members, and even
Contact and visitation trends. There is consid- correctional facilities with respect to any family-
erable variation in contact and visitation trends oriented programming (Comfort, 2008). Several
for incarcerated parents and their families. This factors connect with visitation frequency: having
is partly because of contextual factors such as less time to serve (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008),
parent gender and residence (prior to confine- living closer to the corrections facility, and
ment), visitation and communication policies of encountering fewer visitation problems (Arditti,
the corrections facility, the distance between the Smock, & Parkman, 2005). These findings
offender and his or her children, and sentence mirror research findings pertaining to divorce
length. The most comprehensive information in terms of the importance of proximity and
regarding children’s contact with their incarcer- visitation quality in determining the frequency of
ated parents comes from the Bureau of Justice contact between nonresidential parents and their
special report ‘‘Parents in Prison and their children (see, e.g., Arditti, 1992 [using these
Minor Children’’ (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). same measures]), which suggests that visitation
This 2007 survey of state and federal inmates dynamics may have certain similarities across
revealed that, since their admission, the majority family contexts.
Benefits of visitation. Beyond indicators of have to withstand a lack of privacy; tedious

visitation frequency, much less is known about and lengthy waits; humiliation and rude treat-
the quality and nature of in-person prison ment by correctional officers; and visiting in
visits between incarcerated parents and their crowded, noisy, and dirty facilities (Arditti,
children. Visitation can potentially benefit the 2003; Comfort, 2008; Hairston, 2001). Poor visi-
incarcerated parent and provide emotional and tation conditions suggest a lack of psychological
psychological continuity for family members. safety and do not support an enduring bond
Many imprisoned parents feel that, on balance, among children, family members, and parents.
visits with their children are worthwhile and For many, going on visits entails major resource
serve to strengthen family bonds. Several expenditures of time, money, and energy, with
studies have demonstrated that visits connect little return (Christian, 2005).
to positive outcomes for the offender parent For children, visits to a parent in prison
including lower recidivism (for mothers in a or jail can be hard. It is not uncommon, for
nursery program during confinement; Carlson, example, that prisons restrict the inmate to his
1998), less parental distress and parenting or her seat (which is often bolted to the floor),
stress (mothers: Houck & Loper, 2002; Loper, subsequently limiting visiting children’s move-
Carlson, Levitt, Scheffel, 2009; Poehlmann, ment with few or no options in terms of play
2005b; fathers: Landreth & Lobaugh, 1998), and activities. Visiting at jails may be particularly
paternal involvement post-release (La Vigne, problematic for children and caregivers given
Naser, Brooks, & Castro, 2005). More generic the widespread use of no-contact visits, which
research on offenders (who may or may not be prohibit any physical contact between the incar-
parents) also supports the idea that visitation can cerated parent and visitors (Arditti, 2003). From
improve inmates’ behavior while incarcerated an ecological standpoint, the extent to which
(for a summary, see Bales & Mears, 2008). an environment is promoting or inhibiting has
Although the preponderance of research sug- developmental implications for both parents and
gests visitation benefits the offender, less clear youths (Garbarino, 1995). Traditional prison vis-
are the effects of visits on children. There is itation settings can largely be characterized as
limited evidence suggesting that negative out- inhibiting in that they are environments that
comes for youths with parents in prison may restrict exploration by children and put pressure
be mitigated via regular contact. For example, on parents to monitor children and provide regu-
Trice and Brewster (2004) found that adoles- lation (Lerner, 1998). Given these difficulties, it
cents who reported regular contact with their is no surprise that several studies have found that
mothers were less likely to drop out of school or visitation between children and an incarcerated
be suspended than children whose mothers were parent can have negative effects on children,
incarcerated but did not have consistent contact. such as insecure attachment (Dallaire, Wilson,
A qualitative study of 22 children with incarcer- & Ciccone, 2009; Poehlmann, 2005a), traumatic
ated fathers found that children reported looking separation (Arditti, 2003; Arditti & Few, 2008),
forward to visits, although they were sad when child attention problems (Dallaire, Wilson et al.,
they had to leave (Sack & Seidler, 1978). Young 2009), and uncertainty and frustration on the part
children with regular contact with their mothers of children and a sense of not wanting to visit
may have fewer feelings of alienation (Shlafer (Arditti, 2003; Arditti & Few, 2008; Nesmith
& Poehlmann, 2010). Further, family-friendly & Ruhland, 2008; for a review, see Poehlmann,
interventions such as prison nursery programs Dallaire, Loper, & Shear, 2010).1 Interviews
for mothers and infants (Byrne, Goshin, & conducted directly with 34 children whose
Joestl, 2010) and enhanced prison visitation for fathers were incarcerated revealed a great deal
school-age children and their fathers (Landreth of ‘‘awkwardness’’ during in-person visits that
& Lobaugh, 1998) appear to enhance attachment seemed to increase ‘‘with the length of the incar-
and self-esteem, respectively. ceration or distance between communications’’
(Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008, p. 1124). A root of
Difficulties associated with visitation. The typ-
ically constrained and uninviting environmental
characteristics of traditional visitation settings 1
Both the Dallaire et al. (2009) and Arditti (2003) studies
can create difficulties for offender parents and were at local jails, which tend to have the most prohibitive
their family members. Parents and children often visitation policies.
this awkwardness is the fact that incarcerated with the offender parent who is incarcerated.
fathers ‘‘lost time’’ during their imprisonment Those children who reside with their parents
and stayed stuck, meaning that they treated their prior to incarceration seem particularly vulner-
children the same way they did before con- able to traumatic separation given their greater
finement, thus leaving the child embarrassed or exposure to their parent, although there is some
frustrated (Nesmith & Ruhland, 2008). evidence suggesting that children have difficul-
ties associated with the incarceration of even
Visitation and secondary prisonization. It is a nonresident parent. After arrest and confine-
worth mentioning that the conditions asso- ment of a parent, children may be subjected to
ciated with visitation ‘‘reinforce the curious a series of experiences that reactivate or inten-
position that visitors occupy in their relations sify trauma, including shifts in the quality and
with the prison: neither fully captive nor fully stability of their care, exposure to violence, trou-
free’’ (Comfort, 2008, p. 64). Visitation con- bled parenting, and repeated interactions with
tact serves as a foundation for the institution’s penal institutions via visitation. Whether visi-
long-term alteration of the family’s personal, tation helps or hurts children largely depends
domestic, and social worlds, or ‘‘secondary on the institutional environment, visitation poli-
prisonization’’ (Comfort, 2008). Secondary pris- cies, and the nature of family relationships prior
onization involves the transformation of the non- to and throughout a parent’s incarceration. The
incarcerated family members’ lives as a result of intensification of poverty and social stigma that
interacting with the inmate and the correctional links to parental incarceration further compro-
system. Changes may result in the family’s mise the family’s ability to respond effectively to
social life, routine, priorities, and appearance children’s experience of loss and support healthy
based on their adaptations in response to a developmental trajectories.
parent’s incarceration. Most frequently, these This review represents a first step in draw-
adaptations occur in the context of visiting the ing attention to the issue of child trauma and
incarcerated parent. Comfort (2008) argued that the need for research that specifically evalu-
prison authorities establish a relationship with ates children’s traumagenic experiences as they
family through repeated processing of and tem- pertain to a parent’s incarceration. The avail-
porary containment (during visitation) of them able literature suggests that parental arrest and
during visitation. This relationship ‘‘generates subsequent incarceration can directly link with
changes in self-images and behaviors through traumatic separation as a result of parental loss
rituals of debasement and the persistent denial and disrupted attachment. However, the bulk of
of prestige’’ (p. 29). In pointing here to the paral- research points to a cascade of family process
lels between the nonincarcerated visiting family alterations that stem from a parent’s incarcer-
members and the inmate, Comfort suggested that ation and likely influence the extent to which
the family is subjected to ‘‘weakened versions of children in fact experience trauma, which may
the elaborate regulations, concentrated surveil- be not a singular event but a complex continuum
lance, and corporeal confinement governing the of experiences over time.
lives of ensnared felons and thus are secon- Although the preponderance of evidence cur-
darily prisonized by their interactions with the rently points to the risk of child trauma among
penal institution’’ (p. 29). In this manner (i.e., families affected by a parent’s incarceration,
through secondary prisonization), visitation can broader efforts to assess resilience and protec-
potentially contribute to child trauma. tive factors pertinent to justice involved families
would yield important insights. Although a lim-
ited number of studies document resilience on
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS the part of children and families affected by
The empirical research and theoretical sensitiv- incarceration (e.g., Grant, 2006; Nesmith & Ruh-
ities pertaining to attachment theory and loss land, 2008), systematic within-group research is
indicate that parental incarceration is a context needed that examines how different contextual
for child trauma. Children’s vulnerability to and processual patterns lead to successful child
trauma is influenced by their prior relationships adjustment trajectories, despite the challenges
with the offender parent, the quality and stability of parental incarceration. Presently, scholars
of caregiving they receive during the offender’s must look to other, comparable literature to
confinement, and the nature of their contact understand the role of resilience in improving
parenting behaviors for both offender and care- family processes and children’s delinquency. Jour-
giver, and how it is that children overcome the nal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1471 – 1484.
adversity typically associated with the impris- Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S.
onment of one or both parents. Theory building (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological
and research specific to justice-involved families study of the strange situation. Oxford, UK:
Erlbaum.
may reveal family strengths previously over-
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic
looked and perhaps not defined as strengths in and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.,
other populations of at-risk families. text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Beyond a need to more carefully unpack Anda, R., Felitti, V., Walker, J., Whitfield, C., Brem-
specific resilience processes that may mitigate mer, J., Perry, B., et al. (2006). The enduring
any traumatizing effects of parental incarcera- effects of abuse and related adverse experiences in
tion on children, there is a general scarcity of childhood: A convergence of evidence from neu-
population-based data sources that include rel- robiology and epidemiology. European Archives
evant process variables that bear on parenting of Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 56,
and family outcomes. Although the qualitative 174 – 186.
research utilized for this review provides use- Arditti, J. A. (1992). Factors related to custody,
ful information regarding the nature of some visitation, and child support for divorced fathers:
An exploratory analysis. Journal of Divorce and
children’s experience, the research designs pro-
Remarriage, 17, 23 – 42.
hibit the drawing of any causal conclusions. *Arditti, J. A. (2003). Locked doors and glass walls:
The lack of population-based information about Family visiting at a local jail. Journal of Loss and
parent-child relationships and contact processes Trauma, 8, 115 – 138.
is particularly problematic in that these mecha- Arditti, J. A. (2005). Families and incarceration: An
nisms seem to hold explanatory value relevant to ecological approach. Families in Society, 86,
child adjustment during a parent’s confinement 251 – 258.
and beyond. Given the growing popularity of *Arditti, J. A., Burton, L. M., & Neeves-Botelho,
enhanced visitation programming at state and S. E. (2010). Maternal distress and parenting in
federal institutions (Poehlmann et al., 2010), it the context of cumulative disadvantage. Family
will be particularly important to clearly iden- Process, 49, 142 – 164.
tify under which conditions visitation is helpful *Arditti, J. A., & Few, A. (2008). Maternal distress
and women’s reentry into family and community
to children and when it is contraindicated. life. Family Process, 47, 303 – 321.
Because of the challenges inherent in conduct- Arditti, J. A., Joest, K. S., Lambert-Shute, J.,
ing population-based research among justice- & Walker, L. (2010). The role of emotions in
involved families, efforts to build in relevant fieldwork: A self-study of family research in
family process variables to ongoing longitudi- a corrections setting. Qualitative Report, 15,
nal or recurring cross-sectional data collections 1387 – 1414.
make sense. Additionally, studies following par- *Arditti, J. A., Lambert-Shute, J., & Joest, K. (2003).
ents prior to confinement (e.g., at the time of Saturday morning at the jail: Implications of
arrest), during imprisonment, and for a signif- incarceration for families and children. Family
icant period of time after release would prove Relations, 52, 195 – 204.
invaluable in developing theoretical and empiri- *Arditti, J. A., Smock, S. & Parkman, T. (2005).
cal models pertaining to parenting over time and ‘‘It’s been hard to be a father’’: A qualitative
exploration of incarcerated fatherhood. Fathering,
how changes may link to child outcomes. It may 3, 267 – 283.
be that key turning points are revealed that will Bales, W. D., & Mears, D. P. (2008). Inmate social
theoretically ground more effective interven- ties and the transition to society: Does visitation
tion in helping children successfully navigate a reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime
parent’s incarceration. and Delinquency, 45, 287 – 321.
Beck, A., Cooper, C., McLanahan, S., & Brooks-
REFERENCES2 Gunn, J. (2009). Relationship transitions and
maternal parenting (Working Paper No. 1131).
*Aaron, L., & Dallaire, D. (2010). Parental incar- Retrieved from Princeton University, Center
ceration and multiple risk experiences: Effects on for Research on Child Wellbeing website:
http://crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP08-
12-FF.pdf
2 An asterisk indicates that the study is summarized in the Bernstein, N. (2005). All alone in the world: Child-
appendix. ren of the incarcerated. New York: New Press.
Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). clinical decisions. Annals of Internal Medicine,
Gender-responsive strategies: Research, prac- 126, 376 – 380.
tice, and guiding principles for women offend- Covington, P. (1995). Breaking the cycle of despair:
ers. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Children of incarcerated mothers. New York:
National Institute of Corrections. Women’s Prison Association.
Bloom, B., & Steinhart, D. (1993). Why punish Cummings, E. M., Davies, P. T., & Campbell, S. B.
the children: A reappraisal of the children of (2000). Developmental psychopathology and fam-
incarcerated mothers in America. Atlanta, GA: ily process: Theory, research, and clinical impli-
Carter Center. cations. New York: Guilford Press.
*Bocknek, E. L., Sanderson, J., & Britner, P. A. *Dallaire, D. (2007). Children with incarcerated
(2009). Ambiguous loss and posttraumatic stress mothers: Developmental outcomes, special chal-
of school-aged children of prisoners. Journal of lenges and recommendations. Journal of Applied
Child and Family Studies, 18, 323 – 333. Developmental Psychology, 28, 15 – 24.
Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Dallaire, D., & Aaron, L. (2010). Middle childhood:
Attachment (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Family, school, and peer contexts for children
(Original work published 1969) affected by parental incarceration. In J. Poehlmann
Boss, P. (2004). Ambiguous loss. In F. Walsh & M. Eddy (Eds.), Children of incarcerated par-
& M. McGoldrick (Eds.), Living beyond loss ents: A handbook for researchers and practitioners
(pp. 237 – 246). New York: Norton. (pp. 101 – 119). Washington, DC: Urban Institute
*Braman, D. (2004). Doing time on the outside: Press.
Incarceration and family life in urban America. Dallaire, D., Ciccone, A., & Wilson, L. (2010).
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Teachers’ expectations of their experiences with
Briere, J. (1992). Child abuse trauma: Theory and children with incarcerated mothers. Journal of
treatment of the lasting effects. Newbury Park, Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 281 – 290.
CA: Sage. *Dallaire, D., & Wilson, L. C. (2010). The relation of
Broderick, C. (1993). Understanding family process: exposure to parental criminal activity, arrest, and
sentencing to children’s maladjustment. Journal of
Basics of family system theory. Thousand Oaks,
Child and Family Studies, 19, 404 – 418.
CA: Sage.
Dallaire, D., Wilson, L. C., & Ciccone, A. (2009,
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human
April). Representations of attachment relation-
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
ships in family drawings of children with incar-
Press.
cerated parents. Paper presented at the Biennial
Byrne, M., Goshin, L., & Joestl, S. (2010). Intergen-
Meeting of the Society for Research in Child
erational transmission of attachment for infants Development, Denver, CO.
raised in a prison nursery. Attachment and Human Day, R., Acock, A., Arditti, J., & Bahr, S. (2001).
Development, 12, 375 – 393. From prison to home: Men’s reentry into family
Carlson, J. R. (1998). Evaluating the effectiveness of and community life. Unpublished raw data.
a live-in nursery within a women’s prison. Journal *DeHart, D. D., & Altshuler, S. J. (2009). Violence
of Offender Rehabilitation, 27, 73 – 85. exposure among children of incarcerated mothers.
*Cho, R. (2009a). The impact of maternal impris- Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 26,
onment on children’s educational achievement: 467 – 279.
Results from children in Chicago public schools. Deschenes, E., Owen, B., & Crow, J. (2006, October).
Journal of Human Resources, 44, 772 – 797. Recidivism among female prisoners: Secondary
*Cho, R. (2009b). Impact of maternal imprisonment analysis of the 1994 BJS recidivism data set
on children’s probability of grade retention. (Final report submitted to the U.S. Department
Journal of Urban Economics, 65, 11 – 23. of Justice). Retrieved from http://www.ncjrs.gov/
*Christian, J. (2005). Riding the bus: Barriers pdffiles1/nij/grants/216950.pdf
to prison visitation and family management Doka, K. (1989). Disenfranchised grief: Recognizing
strategies. Journal of Contemporary Criminal hidden sorrow. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Justice, 21, 31 – 48. Dressel, P., & Barnhill, S. (1990). Three generations
Christian, J., & Thomas, S. (2009). Examining at risk. Atlanta, GA: Aid to Imprisoned Mothers.
the intersections of race, gender, and mass Dressel, P., & Barnhill, S. (1994). Reframing geron-
imprisonment. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal tological thought practice: The cases of grand-
Justice, 7, 69 – 84. mothers with daughters in prison. Gerontologist,
*Comfort, M. (2008). Doing time together: Love and 34, 685 – 691.
family in the shadow of prison. Chicago: University *Edin, K., Nelson, T., & Paranal, R. (2004). Father-
of Chicago Press. hood and incarceration as potential turning points
Cook, D., Mulrow, C., & Hanes, R. (1997). Sys- in the criminal careers of unskilled men. In
tematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for M. Patillo, D. Weiman, & B. Western (Eds.),
Imprisoning America: The social effects of mass communities, and prisoners. Crime and Justice,
incarceration (pp. 46 – 75). New York: Russell 26, 121 – 142.
Sage Foundation. Hairston, C. F. (1991). Mothers in jail: Parent–child
Emery, R. (1994). Renegotiating family relationships: separation and jail visitation. Affilia, 6, 9 – 27.
Divorce, child custody, and mediation. New York: Hairston, C. F. (2001). Fathers in prison: Respon-
Guilford Press. sible fatherhood and responsible public policy.
Felitti, V., Anda, R., Nordenberg, D., Williamson, D., Marriage and Family Review, 32, 111 – 135.
Spitz, A., Edwards, V., et al. (1998). Relationship *Hanlon, T., Blatchley, R., Bennett-Sears, T.,
of childhood abuse and household dysfunction O’Grady, K., Rose, M., & Callaman, J. (2005).
to many of the leading causes of death in adults: Vulnerability of children of incarcerated addict
The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. mothers: Implications for preventive intervention.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14, Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 67 – 84.
245 – 258. Hanlon, T., Carswell, S., & Rose, M. (2007).
Finkelhor, D. & Browne, A. (1985). The traumatic Research on caretaking of children of incarcerated
impact of child sexual abuse: A conceptualiza- parents: Findings and their service delivery
tion. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55, implications. Children and Youth Services Review,
530 – 541. 29, 348 – 362.
*Fritsch, T. A., & Burkhead, J. D. (1981). Behavioral *Hanlon, T., O’Grady, K., Bennett-Sears, T., &
reactions of children to parental absence due to Callaman, J. (2005). Incarcerated drug-abusing
imprisonment. Family Relations, 30, 83 – 88. mothers: Their characteristics and vulnerability.
Frost, N. A., Greene, J., & Pranis, K. (2006). Hard American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 1,
hit: The growth in the imprisonment of women, 59 – 77.
1977 – 2004. New York: Institute on Women & Harm, N. J., & Thompson, P. (1995). Needs assess-
Criminal Justice, Women’s Prison Association. ment: Children of incarcerated women and their
Garbarino, J. (1995). Raising children in a social toxic caregivers. Little Rock, AR: Centers for Youth
environment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. and Families.
*Geller, A., Cooper, C., Garfinkel, I., & Mincy, R.
Harvey, J. H. (2002). Perspectives on loss and
(2010). Beyond absenteeism: Father incarcera-
trauma: Assaults on the self. Thousand Oaks, CA:
tion and its effects on children’s development.
Sage.
Retrieved from http://crcw.princeton.edu/working
Herman, J. L. (1992). Complex PTSD: A syndrome
papers/WP09-20-FF.pdf
in survivors of prolonged and repeated trauma.
Geller, A., Garfinkel, I., Cooper, C., & Mincy, R.
Journal of Traumatic Stress, 4, 377 – 391.
(2008). Parental incarceration and child well-
being: Implications for urban families (Working *Houck, K. D. F., & Loper, A. B. (2002). The rela-
Paper No. 1080). Retrieved from http://crcw.prince tionship of parenting stress to adjustment among
ton.edu/workingpapers/WP08-10-FF.pdf mothers in prison. American Journal of Orthopsy-
Gewirtz, A., Forgatch, M., & Wieling, E. (2008). chiatry, 72, 548 – 558.
Parenting practices as potential mechanisms for *Huebner, B. M., & Gustafson, R. (2007). The effect
child adjustment following mass trauma. Journal to maternal incarceration on adult off-spring
of Marital and Family Therapy, 34, 177 – 192. involvement in the criminal justice system. Journal
Glaze, L., & Maruschak, L. (2008, August). Parents of Criminal Justice, 35, 283 – 296.
in prison and their minor children. (Bureau of *Hungerford, G. (1996). Caregivers of children
Justice Statistics Special Report NCJ222984). whose mothers are incarcerated: A study of the
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, kinship placement system. Children Today, 24,
Office of Justice Programs. 23 – 34.
Graham-Bermann, S., & Seng, J. (2005). Violence Jaffee, S. R., Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A. & Taylor, A.
exposure and traumatic stress symptoms as (2003). Life with (or without) father: The benefits
additional predictors of health problems in of living with two biological parents depend on the
high-risk children. Journal of Pediatrics, 146, father’s antisocial behavior. Child Development,
349 – 354. 74, 109 – 126.
Grant, D. (2006). Resilience of girls with incarcerated *Johnson, R.C. (2009). Ever-increasing levels of
mothers: The impact of girl scouts. Prevention parental incarceration and the consequences for
Researcher, 13, 11 – 14. children. In S. Raphael & M. Stoll (Eds.), Do
Greene, S., Haney, C., & Hurtado, A. (2000). Cycles prisons make us safer? The benefits and costs
of pain: Risk factors in the lives of incarcerated of the prison boom (pp. 177 – 206). New York:
mothers and their children. Prison Journal, 80, Russell Sage Foundation.
3 – 23. Johnston, D. (1991). Jailed mothers. Pasadena, CA:
Hagan, J., & Dinovitzer, R. (1999). Collateral Pacific Oaks Center for Children of Incarcerated
consequences of imprisonment for children, Parents.
Johnston, D. (1992). Children of criminal offenders. Lieberman, A. F., & Van Horn, P. (2008). Psy-
Pasadena, CA: Pacific Oaks Center for Children of chotherapy with infants and young children:
Incarcerated Parents. Repairing the effects of stress and trauma on early
Johnston, D. (1993). Children of the therapeutic attachment. New York: Guilford Press.
intervention project. Pasadena, CA: Pacific Oaks Lindemann, E. (1944). Symptomatology and man-
Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents. agement of acute grief. American Journal of
Johnston, D. (2001, September 23 – 26). What works Psychiatry, 101, 141 – 148.
for children of prisoners: The ‘‘Children of Crim- Loper, A. B., Carlson, L. W., Levitt, L., & Schef-
inal Offenders in the Community’’ study. Paper fel, K. (2009). Parenting stress, alliance, child
presented at the Annual Research Conference of contact, and adjustment of imprisoned mothers
the International Community Corrections Associ- and fathers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,
ation, Philadelphia, PA. 48, 483 – 503.
Johnston, D. (2006). The wrong road: Efforts to *Lowenstein, A. (1986). Temporary single parent-
understand the effects of parental crime and hood: The case of prisoners’ families. Family
incarceration. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, Relations, 35, 79 – 85.
703 – 719. *Mackintosh, V., Myers, B., & Kennon, S. (2006).
Johnston, D., & Carlin, M. (1996). Enduring trauma Children of incarcerated mothers and their
among children of criminal offenders. Family caregivers: Factors affecting the quality of their
Systems Research and Therapy, 5, 22 – 39. relationship. Journal of Child and Family Studies,
*Kampfner, C. J. (1995). Post-traumatic stress reac- 15, 579 – 594.
tions in children of imprisoned mothers. In Mancini, J. A., & Roberto, K. A. (Eds.). (2009).
K. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.), Children of incar- Pathways of human development: Explorations
cerated parents (pp. 89 – 100). New York: Lexing- of change. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
ton Books. McKay, M., Lynn, C., & Bannon, W. (2005). Under-
*Kinner, S., Alati, R., Najman, J., & Williams, G. standing inner city child mental health need and
(2007). Do paternal arrest and imprisonment lead trauma exposure: Implications for preparing urban
to child behavior problems and substance use? A service providers. American Journal of Orthopsy-
longitudinal analysis. Journal of Child Psychology chiatry, 75, 201 – 210.
and Psychiatry, 48, 1148 – 1156. McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hard-
Kiser, L., & Black, M. (2005). Family processes in ship on black families and children: Psychological
the midst of urban poverty: What does the trauma distress, parenting, and socioemotional develop-
literature tell us? Aggression and Violent Behavior, ment. Child Development, 61, 311 – 346.
10, 715 – 750. Mumola, C. (2000). Incarcerated parents and their
*La Vigne, N., Naser, R., Brooks, L., & Castro, J. children (Bureau of Justice Statistics Special
(2005). Examining the effects of incarceration and Report NCJ 182335). Washington, DC: US
family contact on prisoners’ family relationships. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, Murray, J. (2005). The effects of imprisonment on
314 – 355. families and children. In. A. Liebling & S. Maruna
La Vigne, N., Visher, C., & Castro, J. (2005). (Eds.), The effects of imprisonment (pp. 442 – 462).
Chicago prisoners’ experiences returning home. Cambridge, UK: Willan.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2006). Evidence-
Landreth, G. L., & Lobaugh, A. F. (1998). Filial based programs for children of prisoners. Crim-
therapy with incarcerated fathers: Effects on inology and Public Policy, 5, 721 – 735.
parental acceptance of child, parental stress, and *Murray, J., & Farrington, D. P. (2008). Parental
child adjustment. Journal of Counseling and imprisonment: Long-lasting effects on boys’
Development, 76, 157 – 165. internalizing problems through the life-course.
Lattimore, P. K., Steffey, D. M., & Visher, C. (2009, Development and Psychopathology, 20, 273 – 290.
December). Prisoner reentry experiences of adult Murray, J., Farrington, D. P., Sekol, I., & Olsen, R. F.
males: Characteristics, service receipt, and out- (2009). Effects of parental imprisonment on
comes of participants in the SVORI multi-site child antisocial behaviour and mental health: A
evaluation. Retrieved from the US Department of systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews,
Justice, National Criminal Justice Reference Ser- 4, 1 – 105.
vice website: http://Ncjrs.Gov/Pdfiles1/Nij/Grants/ Myers, B., Smarsh, T., Amlund-Hagen, K., & Ken-
230419 non, S. (1999). Children of incarcerated mothers.
Lerner, R. (1998). Theories of human development: Journal of Child and Family Studies, 8, 11 – 25.
Contemporary perspectives. In W. Damon & *Nesmith, A., & Ruhland, E. (2008). Children of
R. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: incarcerated parents: Challenges and resiliency, in
Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development their own words. Child and Youth Services Review,
(5th ed., pp. 1 – 24). New York: Wiley. 30, 1119 – 1130.
Nesmith, A., Ruhland, E., & Krueger, S. (2006, Jan- Poehlmann, J. (2003). An attachment perspective on
uary). Children of incarcerated parents (Coun- grandparents raising their very young grandchil-
cil on Crime and Justice). Retrieved from the dren: Implications for intervention and research.
US Department of Justice website: http://www. Infant Mental Health Journal, 24, 149 – 173.
racialdisparity.org/. . ./CCJ%20CIP%20FINAL% *Poehlmann, J. (2005a). Children’s family environ-
20REPORT.pdf ments and intellectual outcomes during maternal
Nolan, C. M. (2003, July). Children of arrested incarceration. Journal of Marriage and Family,
parents: Strategies to improve their safety and 67, 1275 – 1285.
well-being (California Research Bureau 03 – 011). *Poehlmann, J. (2005b). Incarcerated mothers’ con-
Retrieved from the California State Library tact with children, perceived family relationships,
website: http://www.library.ca.gov/crb/03/11/03- and depressive symptoms. Journal of Family Psy-
011.pdf chology, 19, 350 – 357.
Osborne, C., & McClanahan, S. (2007). Partnership *Poehlmann, J. (2005c). Representations of attach-
instability and child wellbeing. Journal of Mar- ment relationships in children of incarcerated
riage and Family, 69, 1065 – 1083. mothers. Child Development, 76, 679 – 696.
Parke, R., & Clarke-Stewart, A. (2003). Effects of Poehlmann, J. (2010). Attachment in infants and
parental incarceration on children: Perspectives, children of incarcerated parents. In J. Poehlmann
promises, and policies. In J. Travis & M. Waul & J. M. Eddy (Eds.), Children of incarcerated
(Eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of parents (pp. 75 – 100). Washington, DC: Urban
incarceration and reentry on children, families, Institute Press.
and communities (pp. 189 – 232). Washington, Poehlmann, J., Dallaire, D., Loper, A., & Shear, L.
DC: Urban Institute Press. (2010). Children’s contact with their incarcerated
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and parents: Research findings and recommendations.
evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. American Psychologist, 65, 575 – 598.
Pecora, P. J., Kessler, R. C., Williams, J., O’Brien, K., Pynoos, R. S. (1993). Traumatic stress and devel-
Downs, A. C., English, D., et al. (2005). Improv- opmental psychopathology in children and
ing family foster care: Findings from the Northwest adolescents. In J. M. Oldham, M. B. Riba, &
Foster Care Alumni Study. Seattle, WA: Casey A. Tasman (Eds.), Review of psychiatry (Vol. 12.,
Family Programs. pp. 205 – 238). Washington, DC: American Psy-
Phillips, S., Burns, B. J., Wagner, H. R., & Barth, R. chiatric Press.
(2004). Parental arrest and children involved with Reed, D. F., & Reed, E. L. (1997). Children of
child welfare services agencies. American Journal incarcerated parents. Social Justice, 24, 152 – 169.
of Orthopsychiatry, 74, 174 – 186. Roth, S., & Friedman, M. (1998). Childhood trauma
*Phillips, S. D., Burns, B. J., Wagner, H. R., remembered: A report on the current scientific
Kramer, T. L., & Robbins, J. M. (2002). Parental knowledge base and its applications. Journal of
incarceration among adolescents receiving mental Child Sexual Abuse, 7, 83 – 109.
health services. Journal of Child and Family *Sack, W., & Seidler, J. (1978). Should children visit
Studies, 11, 385 – 399. their parents in prison? Law and Human Behavior,
Phillips, S., Dettlaff, A., & Baldwin, M. (2010). An 2, 261 – 266.
exploratory study of the range of implications of Sano, Y. (2005). The unanticipated consequences of
families’ criminal justice system involvement in promoting father involvement: A feminist per-
child welfare cases. Children and Youth Service spective. In V. Bengston, A. Acock, K. Allen,
Review, 32, 544 – 550. P. Dilworth-Anderson, & D. Klein (Eds.), Source-
*Phillips, S., Erkanli, A., Keeler, G., Costello, J., book of family theory and research (pp. 355 – 356).
& Angold, A. (2006). Disentangling the risks: Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Parent criminal justice involvement and children’s Schoenbauer, L. J. (1986). Incarcerated parents and
exposure to family risks. Criminology and Public their children—Forgotten families. Law and
Policy, 5, 677 – 702. Inequality, 4, 579 – 601.
Phillips, S., & Gates, T. (2010, July). A conceptual Shlafer, R. J., & Poehlmann, J. (2010). Attachment
framework for understanding the stigmatization and caregiving relationships in families affected
of children of incarcerated parents. Journal of by parental incarceration. Attachment and Human
Child and Family Studies. doi:10.1007/s10826- Development, 12, 395 – 415.
010-9391-6 Singer, M., Anglin, T., Song, L., & Lunghofer, L.
*Phillips, S., & Zhao, J. (2010). The relationship (1995). Adolescents’ exposure to violence and
between witnessing arrests and elevated symptoms associated symptoms of psychological trauma.
of posttraumatic stress: Findings from a national Journal of the American Medical Association, 273,
study of children involved in the child welfare 477 – 482.
system. Children and Youth Services Review, 32, Stein, B. D., Zima, B. T., Elliott, M. N., Burnam,
1246 – 1254. A. M., Shahinfar, A., Fox, N. A., et al. (2001).
Violence exposure among school-age children in in relation to children’s symptomatology following

foster care: Relationship to distress symptoms. a traumatic event. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 23,
Journal of the American Academy of Child and 403 – 407.
Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 588 – 594. van der Kolk, B. (1987). Psychological trauma.
Travis, J., & Waul, M. (2003). Prisoners once Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishers.
removed: The impact of incarceration and Visher, C., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from
reentry on children, families, and communities. prison to community: Understanding individual
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29,
*Trice, A. D., & Brewster, J. (2004). The effects 89 – 113.
of maternal incarceration on adolescent children. Werner-Lin, A., & Moro, T. (2004). Unacknowl-
Journal of Policy and Criminal Psychology, 19, edged and stigmatized losses. In F. Walsh
27 – 35. & M. McGoldrick (Eds.), Living beyond loss
Uggen, C., & Wakefield, S. (2005). Young adults (pp. 247 – 271). New York: Norton.
reentering the community from the criminal justice Widom, C. P., & White, H. R. (1997). Problem
system: The challenge of becoming an adult. behaviors in abused and neglected children grown
In D. W. Osgood, E. M. Foster, C. Flanagan, & up: Prevalence and co-occurrence of substance
G. Ruth (Eds.), On your own without a net: The abuse, crime and violence. Criminal Behavior and
transition to adulthood for vulnerable populations Mental Health, 7, 287 – 310.
(pp. 114 – 144). Chicago: University of Chicago Wildeman, C. (2010). Paternal incarceration and chil-
Press. dren’s physically aggressive behaviors: Evidence
Valentino, K., Berkowitz, S., & Stover, C. (2010). from the fragile families and child wellbeing study.
Parenting behaviors and posttraumatic symptoms Social Forces, 89, 285 – 309.
APPENDIX
202
Table A1. Evidence Map of Selected Empirical Studies Sampling Incarcerated Parents and Families Impacted by Incarceration
Sample Comparison Methodological

Study Quan. Qual. Mothers Fathers Family size/type group Longitudinal Major findings comments
Aaron & X C, CGa 874 C, 150 of whom X Follow-up Recent parental Multiple informants,
Dallaire, had parent incarceration data triangulation;
2010 incarcerated and predicted family adequate reliability;
their parents conflict, control variables in
victimization, and analyses; 22%
parent reports of attrition of parent
child delinquency response at
follow-up
Arditti & Few, X X 10 Follow-up Manifestations of Case-study method
2008 Jail/prison maternal distress described; in-depth
were backbone of interviews yielding
women’s reentry thick description;
stories; mothers’ member checking;
distress was data and
intensified by investigator
punitive and triangulation
traumatic context
of prison,
undermining
reentry trajectories
and relationships
with children
Journal of Family Theory & Review
Table A1. Continued

Arditti, X X CG/W/IPb 56 Families were at risk Methods, data, and

Lambert- Jail economically before investigator
Shute et al., incarceration; most triangulation; study
2003 vulnerable became participants
even more financially represented larger
strained afterward. population
Problems are created
by incarceration:
parenting strain,
Child Trauma and Parental Incarceration
emotional stress,
concerns about
children’s loss of
involvement with the
incarcerated parent
Arditti, 2003 X X CG/W/IP 56 Issues that emerged in Methods and data
Jail the context of family triangulation
visiting at the jail
included concerns of
the lack of physical
contact affecting
inmate’s children,
and various obstacles
and barriers
connected to the
setting and harsh,
disrespectful
treatment by jail staff
203
204
Table A1. Continued

Arditti, Smock X X 51 Many fathers perceived Investigator

et al., 2005 Prison mothers’ gatekeeping, triangulation;
or efforts to prevent intercoder
contact, as evidence of reliability check
their powerlessness
Arditti, Burton X X 14 Xc In response to high levels Exemplar case-study
et al., 2010 Jail/prison of maternal distress and approach;
accumulated investigator
disadvantage, most triangulation
mothers exhibited
harsh discipline of their
children; some mothers
transformed distress by
advocating for their
children under difficult
circumstances
Bocknek et al., X X CM & Fd 35 Findings showed that Descriptive study
2009 Prison children’s with methods
posttraumatic stress triangulation;
mediates relationship excellent alpha
between trauma and reported for
decreased mental posttraumatic stress
health functioning; assessment;
internalizing rather however, alphas for
than externalizing was other child
a common reaction to outcomes fair to
emotional stress from poor
the ambiguous loss
Table A1. Continued

Braman, 2004 X Couples 10e Follow-up Families revealed that the In-depth repeated
Prison burden of stigma persists interviews
and often falls more
heavily on nonoffending
family members than on
offenders; the result is
that relationships at
individual and
community level are
diminished and distorted
to guard information
about incarceration
Cho, 2009a X CM 2173; 4689f X X Although children with Panel data; statistical
Prison imprisoned mothers have model specified;
lower test scores than the bias accounted for
average child attending statistically via
public elementary fixed effects
school, they do not
appear to perform worse
because of their mother’s
imprisonment
Cho, 2009b X CM 4135; 9346g X Test twice Results suggest that 3 separate
Jail separation between longitudinal data
imprisoned mother and bases; statistical
her elementary model specified;
school-age children does exact block
not cause children to matching for
suffer in terms of comparison group;
increased retention rates conditional DID
regression
estimator usedh
205
206
Table A1. Continued

Christian, X CG/W/IP 19 Highlights the collateral Data triangulation;

2005 Prison consequences of extensive time in
incarceration, the field;
especially what is participants
required for families to representative of
maintain contact with population of
prisoners; relationships family members
before incarceration, using transportation
prisoners’ efforts to provided by NY
improve themselves, prison system for
economic resources, visitation
and social support
system may influence
how families stay
connected to prisoners
over time
Comfort, 2008 X W/IP 50 Female intimate partners Immersion in the field
Prison of male inmates over an extended
showed evidence of period of time;
secondary thick description
prisonization, i.e., regarding setting
adopting mores, and methods
customs, and norms of
the prison
environment; women
created psychological
presence of partner
outside of prison walls
Table A1. Continued

Dallaire, 2007 X X X 690/324i Compare Maternal incarceration Nationally

4029/1103j mothers and over paternal representative data;
Jail and prison fathers incarceration is a risk z-approximation
for children to be tests used to
incarcerated compensate for
themselves; comparing groups
accumulated risks of different size
increase
intergenerational
incarceration; children
with both parents

incarcerated may be at
especially high risk for
problem behavior
Dallaire & X X X X C, CM 46/49/32/32 Within-group Children who witnessed Small sample with
Wilson, Jail with some their parent’s criminal limited power
2010 children activity, arrest, and enhanced by use of
witnessing sentencing had more multiple informants
arrest and maladjustment in as to children’s
sentencing emotional regulation, maladjustment,
performed worse on a including child
receptive vocabulary reports;
test, and exhibited standardized
more anxiety and measures with good
depression than internal consistency
children who had an
incarcerated parent but
did not witness these
events
207
Table A1. Continued
208
DeHart & X X C 60 Children experience Random selection of

Altshuler, Prison violence in their lives participants;
2009 with incarcerated in-depth interviews
mother, including and debriefing;
child witnessing of reflexive field
violence, emotional notes; data
sequelae, bodily triangulation
harm from abuse and
neglect, sexual abuse,
and birth defects
from prenatal
violence
Edin et al., X X 300 Repeated Incarcerated fathers Large N for
2004 Jail, prison, and inter- who believe underrepresented
court-ordered drug view incarceration has group; life history
rehab profound effects on interviews
relationships both conducted over
with their children 5 years; sample
and their children’s stratified by age
mothers may manage and ethnicity in two
to avoid incarceration cities
again; for male
inmates with
continued ties to
children and the
mothers of these
children, their
journey in
renegotiating a
fathering role was
certainly easier
Table A1. Continued

Fritsch & X X X 91 Parental absence is a Exploratory study;

Burkhead, Prison multidimensional variable randomly selected
1981 (minimum that takes on added sample with detailed
security) meaning depending on good description of
whether the child believes participants
the parent is absent for
socially acceptable
reasons or for reasons that
carry a stigma; sex of the
absent parent was shown
to be correlated with the
type behavior exhibited,

absence of the father with
acting-out and absence of
the mother with acting-in
behavior.
Geller et al., X X X 8,728 X Repeated Children of incarcerated Fragile Families Data
2008 Jail or interviewk parents face more Set comprising
prison economic and residential multiple informants;
instability than their data triangulation;
counterparts; children of most alphas reported
incarcerated fathers also good, although one
display more behavior subscale retained with
problems, though other low alpha; inclusion
developmental differences of confounding
are insignificant; several covariates in
family differences are analyses; bias
magnified when both accounted for
parents have been statistically via
incarcerated fixed-effects
modeling
209
Table A1. Continued
210
Greene et al., X X X 102 The majority of Purposeful sample

2008 Jail incarcerated mothers with methods
come from families triangulation
with criminogenic risk
factors (e.g., poverty,
physical abuse, sexual
abuse, witnessing
violence); short- and
long-term attempts to
cope with these
traumatic childhood
experiences, however,
led most of them to jail
Hanlon, X CM 88 Most children with Methods triangulation;
Blatchley, Prison incarcerated mothers multiple informants;
et al., 2005 were neither especially good to excellent
deviant nor alphas on most
maladjusted, all but a measures used in
small percentage having study; widely used
successfully avoided assessment tools
substance abuse and the
adoption of a deviant
lifestyle at this point in
their development;
primary caregivers of
the children may have
attenuated the negative
impact ordinarily
associated with a
mother’s absence from
the home
Table A1. Continued

Hanlon, X X X 167 For the incarcerated Good response rate;

O’Grady, Prison drug-abusing mothers, widely used
et al., 2005 results revealed significant assessment tools
relationships between
higher risk levels and less
favorable current
adjustment; despite
potential disruption
stemming from their drug
use and incarceration, their
children were protected
from the negative

consequences of these
circumstances by a kinship
phenomenon prevalent
among African American
families
Houck & X X 362 This study demonstrated a Racially diverse
Loper, 2002 Prison clear relationship between sample;
incarcerated mothers’ well-established
feelings of parenting stress measures used,
and emotional and although subscale
behavioral maladjustment; alphas varied from
incarcerated mothers who poor to excellent;
report high levels of some data
anxiety and depression and triangulation to
who exhibit behavioral check accuracy of
difficulties tend to mother reports
experience feelings of
inadequacy and loss as a
parent
211
Table A1. Continued
212
Huebner & X CM/CCl 31, 1666 X X 26% of children with Nationally

Gustafson, incarcerated mothers were representative
2007 convicted of a criminal study, confounding
offense as adults, variables controlled
compared to 10% of the for statistically;
children in the change during
comparison group incarceration not
measured
Hungerford, X X X CG/C 150,107/398 Follow- The majority of the inmate Sequential mixed
1996 Pre-release upm mothers reported that their methods design;
Center for children’s caregivers were multiple informants
Women the best possible choices
they could have arranged;
however, caregivers
expressed that they
accepted the children’s
care usually made
voluntarily, so they were
unprepared for the tasks
Johnson, 2009 X CF 3540 Xn Parental imprisonment was Nationally
Prison connected to poor mental representative
health in children, and a sample of adults
trend toward antisocial and children;
outcomes for children control variables
after parental included; model
imprisonment; tests for unobserved
incarceration magnified bias included
economic, educational,
and social disadvantage
for the offender and his or
her family
Table A1. Continued

Kampfner, X CM, CC 36, 36 Children of incarcerated Thick description but

1995 mothers displayed used convenience
evidence of PTSD sample
symptoms, even
several years after
separation; children
with incarcerated
mothers had less social

support than a control
group of children
whose mothers were at
home
Kinner et al., X CF, CC 137, 2262 X X Although poor child Population-based
2007 (Australia) outcomes in study; good alpha
adolescence largely reported for one
accounted for by social assessment;
and familial risk weighted analysis
factors, paternal used to account for
incarcerated predicted those lost to
internalizing problems follow-up;
and antisocial behavior sensitivity analyses
for boys and girls: conducted to
paternal arrest linked to account for changes
substance use for boys over time
213
Table A1. Continued
214
La Vigne, X X 233 X The level and type of family Five facility sample
Naser, Prison contact typically mediate the from one state; 2
et al., 2005 effect of pre-prison in-depth repeated
relationship quality on interviews;
post-prison family excellent reliability
relationship quality and alphas reported for
support, but in-prison contact all measures; use of
can be a negative influence if control variables,
intimate partner relationships interaction terms,
are already poor and testing of
multiple models to
confirm hypotheses
Lowenstein, X W 118 The ability of children to adjust Widely used measures
1986 Prison successfully to father’s with acceptable
imprisonment is related to reliability; factor
familial and personal structure of
resources of the mother and to children’s
the stigmatizing effects of the adjustment measure
criminal event explored
Mackintosh X X CG/CM 25/69 Children who felt lower levels of Methods
et al., 2006 Jail warmth and acceptance from triangulation;
their caregivers self-reported widely use
greater internalizing and measures for quant
externalizing behaviors; portion with very
caregivers’ warmth and good reliability
acceptance toward the alphas
children was lower when they
assessed the children’s
behavior as difficult and the
caregivers’ parenting stress
was high
Table A1. Continued

Murray & X CMo 411 X X Parental imprisonment Population-based

Farrington, Prison predicted worse study; fair to
2008 (England) internalizing excellent alphas
outcomes than other reported for most
forms of parent–child measures; control
separation; prisoner’s variables included
children were more in analyses
likely than their peers
to show both
internalizing and
antisocial problems
throughout their lives
Nesmith & X C/CGp 34q Xr This study explored the Multiple informants;
Ruhland, Prison impact of parental engagement with
2008 incarceration from participants over
the children’s own repeated
perspectives. interviews; random
Children revealed a transcription
variety of stresses checks; three
around social independent coders
isolation and and collaborative
worrying about their coding of content
caregivers but also
demonstrated
resilience in locating
venues for support
and self sufficiency
215
Table A1. Continued
216
Phillips, Burns, X C 258 Follow-up Subjects who experienced Population-based

Wagner, Jail or prison parental incarceration study; fair to good
Kramer et al., were exposed to reliability alphas
2002 significantly more risk reported
factors during their
lifetimes, including
parental substance
abuse, extreme poverty,
and abuse or neglect;
they were more likely
than other youths to
present attention-
deficit/hyperactivity
and conduct disorders
Phillips, Erkanli X Cs 1420 X Xt Children whose parents Population-based
et al., 2006 CJS involvement become involved in study; 80%
CJS are at the risk of response rate for
parental substance families in the
abuse and parental sample; multiple
mental health informants (parent
problems; incarceration and child); data
and other outcomes of weighted to
arrest linked to represent general
increased likelihood of population from
children developing which sample
serious emotional and recruited; statistical
behavioral problems, modeling accounts
and of becoming for error stemming
involved with criminal from within
authorities subjects and design
effects
Table A1. Continued

Phillips & X Children who 1869, 122 of X X Witnessing of parental Population-based

Zhao, 2010 reportedly whom arrest significantly study with reliable
experienced witnessed a predicted heightened measures;
maltreat- parent’s arrest PTSD symptoms; well-executed
ment children who witnessed multivariate
their parents’ arrests analyses with
were more likely to be controls; however,
exposed to violence, study limited to
victims of violence, children who are
witness nonviolent the subject of
crime, and live in maltreatment
families that had trouble reports

meeting their basic
needs
Poehlmann, X X X CG/C 60,60/60 Children of incarcerated Characteristics of
2005a Prison mothers experienced participants
risks at multiple mirrored national
contextual levels; with surveys of
high-risk status, incarcerated
children’s intellectual women; method
outcomes were triangulation;
compromised; caregiver multiple
risks were associated informants;
with children’s adequate or
intellectual outcomes; excellent reliability
the relation between alphas reported
caregiver risks and
children’s intellectual
outcomes was mediated
by quality of current
family environment
217
Table A1. Continued
218
Poehlmann, X X X 94 Mother–child relationships Methods triangulation;

2005b Prison were more positive when excellent reliability
mothers had more frequent alphas reported; control
telephone contact with variables included in
older children; conflicted analyses
relationships with
caregivers related to less
contact between mothers
and their children
Poehlmann, X CM 60 Most children of imprisoned Characteristics of
2005c Prison mothers held participants mirrored
representations of insecure national surveys of
relationships with mothers incarcerated women;
and caregivers; however, method triangulation;
secure relationships were multiple informants;
more likely when children very good reliability
lived in a stable caregiving alphas for measures
situation, when children used; codes with
reacted to separation from inadequate interrater
the mother with sadness reliability dropped
rather than anger, and
when children were older
Sack & X CF 22 Children placed a high value Clinical interviews
Seidler, Prison on prison visits but also
1978 experienced inner conflict
over fathers’
imprisonment; children
seemed isolated from peers
and showed evidence of
depression and anxiety
Table A1. Continued

Trice & X X CG/C 41,47/58 Xu Children of incarcerated Stratified sample to

Brewster, Prison mothers were at high enhance
2004 risk for school, representativeness
community, and home of women in
problems; although the prison; very high
children initially response rate;
experienced difficulty multiple informants
adapting to structured
placements, those who
were living in homes
with rules and with

family members had
better educational
outcomes, as did
children who
communicated
frequently with their
mothers
Note: C = children; CG = Caregiver.
a Children and caregivers of incarcerated parent. b Caregivers, wives, or intimate partners of male inmates. c Data from a longitudinal ethnographic study: Three-City Study. d Majority of
children in study had an incarcerated father. e More than 200 interviews conducted with 10 couples over 3 years. f Compared records from children affected by incarceration with records
from children who did not experience parental incarceration. g Compared records from children affected by incarceration with records from children who did not experience parental
incarceration. h Conditional difference-in-difference (DID) regression estimator technique helps avoid bias that would occur if children selected into ‘‘prison’’ group due to unobserved
characteristics that are not controlled for via matching. i Mothers of minor and/or adult children. j Fathers of minor and/or adult children. k A longitudinal family survey. l Control children.
m
Structured interviews with mothers were followed by questionnaires. n Panel Survey of Income Dynamics. o Prospective study of UK males age 8–48 separated from parents as a result
of incarceration, death, or divorce. p Although authors interviewed both children and their caregivers, in this article, they discussed only the child portion of the study; the caregiver
perspective will be presented in a forthcoming article. q Thirty-two with incarcerated fathers, 2 with incarcerated mothers. r Repeated interviews with family over 12 months. s By age 16,
47% of children had parent involved in criminal justice system (CJS): of these 41.6% had father in CJS, and 10.4% had mother in CJS. t Data were from a longitudinal epidemiologic
study of youth from 11 rural counties in North Carolina. u 41 parents of friends known by the children in the study.
219

Arditti 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arditti 2012

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arditti 2012

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

JOYCE A.

ARDITTI Virginia Tech

Child Trauma Within the Context of Parental

Children’s Prior Involvement With the Offender

Delinquency study of 66 caregivers of children It is unknown how stigma specifically

Benefits of visitation. Beyond indicators of have to withstand a lack of privacy; tedious

Violence exposure among school-age children in in relation to children’s symptomatology following

Sample Comparison Methodological

Sample Comparison Methodological

Arditti, X X CG/W/IPb 56 Families were at risk Methods, data, and

Sample Comparison Methodological

Arditti, Smock X X 51 Many fathers perceived Investigator

Sample Comparison Methodological

Sample Comparison Methodological

Christian, X CG/W/IP 19 Highlights the collateral Data triangulation;

Sample Comparison Methodological

Dallaire, 2007 X X X 690/324i Compare Maternal incarceration Nationally

with both parents

DeHart & X X C 60 Children experience Random selection of

Sample Comparison Methodological

Fritsch & X X X 91 Parental absence is a Exploratory study;

type behavior exhibited,

Greene et al., X X X 102 The majority of Purposeful sample

Sample Comparison Methodological

Hanlon, X X X 167 For the incarcerated Good response rate;

from the negative

Huebner & X CM/CCl 31, 1666 X X 26% of children with Nationally

Sample Comparison Methodological

Kampfner, X CM, CC 36, 36 Children of incarcerated Thick description but

mothers had less social

Sample Comparison Methodological

Murray & X CMo 411 X X Parental imprisonment Population-based

Phillips, Burns, X C 258 Follow-up Subjects who experienced Population-based

Sample Comparison Methodological

Phillips & X Children who 1869, 122 of X X Witnessing of parental Population-based

families that had trouble reports

Poehlmann, X X X 94 Mother–child relationships Methods triangulation;

Sample Comparison Methodological

Trice & X X CG/C 41,47/58 Xu Children of incarcerated Stratified sample to

with rules and with

You might also like